Interference No. 102,712
that Mehrotra’s case for priority fails for lack of
corroboration.
The need for corroboration of an inventor’s testimony in
establishing a case for priority is a fundamental and well-
established principle of interference practice. Rivise and
Caesar, Interference Law and Practice, Vol. III, section 539
(Michie Co. 1947).
The purpose of the rule requiring corroboration is to
reduce the potential for fraud and to establish, by proof that
is unlikely to have been fabricated or falsified, that the
inventor successfully reduced his invention to practice.
Berry v. Webb, 412 F.2d 261, 266-67, 162 USPQ 170, 174 (CCPA
1969). The evidence necessary for corroboration is determined
by the rule of reason which involves an examination, analysis
and evaluation of the record as a whole to the end that a
reasoned determination as to the credibility of the inventor’s
story may be reached. Berges v. Gottstein, 618 F.2d 771, 774,
205 USPQ 691, 694 (CCPA 1980); Mann v. Werner, 347 F.2d 636,
640, 146 USPQ 199, 202 (CCPA 1965). Although adoption of the
“rule of reason” has eased the requirement of corroboration
with respect to the quantum of evidence necessary to establish
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007